| Technical influences | Social influences |
---|---|---|
Technical design features | ||
1. Removal of carbon dioxide from the blend. | Need for daily replenishment of molasses mixture in all houses to ensure the same blend of odours in all houses. | Mobilisation of women to distribute molasses. |
Cost of procuring molasses. | ||
Disposal of by-products of fermentation | ||
2. Change from fabric to metal trap cone. | The textile used absorbed the odour cues. | Â |
3. Change to trap with rigid plastic base with fine mesh that allowed passage of odorant cues. | Need to increase airflow into the mosquito trap. | More appealing to end users. |
4. Change of metal trap cones to plastic. |  | Researchers’ and residents’ concerns over theft of metallic SMoTS parts. |
Plastic cones cheaper than metal ones. | ||
5. Inclusion of a port for phone charging. | Â | Researchers wishes to provide a direct additional benefit to research participants. |
Social design features | ||
1. Community roll-out sequence ballot | Need to maximise possibility of detecting effect of the intervention in complex island geography. | Scientists need for the roll-out to be legitimate and transparent in the eyes of the community. |
Community wishes to have an input in decision making. | ||
2. Creation of CAB | Channel of communication for development of project and problem solving. | Scientists’ need to keep community involved and interested. |
3. Choice of consensus method to select house to install with SMoTS in homesteads with multiple houses. | Â | Community wishes to have a say and scientists wish to involve community members in decision making. |
Number of houses in a homestead. |